B***h-slappin' the FCC?

[Gurm]

Ok, so the courts have FINALLY tugged back a little on the FCC's reins:

There's a topic in the HTPC forum, essentially the FCC mandated that all broadcast receivers had to recognize and honor, in hardware, a flag that marked content as "protected" or not. In other words your TIVO would have to refuse to record things that the cable company didn't want it to. Friggin' ridiculous, we all said - and the courts finally agreed!

Now, forever and a day I've said that the FCC is overstepping their bounds. They aren't a regulatory agency - they're an ADVISORY COMMISSION. Their primary function was supposed to be to keep track of who was using which broadcast frequencies - not REGULATE them!

And yet every time we turn around the FCC is fining this or that person, or enacting a new regulation.

It's refreshing to see that the courts recognize it when the FCC oversteps their bounds - I just wish the courts got involved more often!

As a blatant example - the FCC fined ABC an absurd amount of money for Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction". But they don't have any fining authority! ABC could, at least to the best of my knowledge, just ... ignore the fine! It's like if the registrar of deeds down at city hall came knocking on my door and said "give me $50 or I'll declare your property belongs to the public domain", he'd be out of a job so fast it'd make your head spin. But somehow people have always tolerated the FCC doing it.

Thoughts?

[Technoid]

Great, it's a step in the right direction

[Wombat]

The FCC IS a regulatory agency. Do you have any proof that they aren't?

[Gurm]

The FCC IS a regulatory agency. Do you have any proof that they aren't?

Other than their actions, do you have proof that they ARE?

No seriously, I believe that they're a classic example of a government agency that has overstepped its boundaries FAR too many times. Someone wanna google up their charter? I'm pretty sure it isn't a regulatory charter.

[Dr Mordrid]

Other than their actions, do you have proof that they ARE?

Read the title of this official document if you have any doubts:

http://www.fcc.gov/Speeches/Abernathy/2002/spkqa213.html

But I do agree that the FCC has long ago left its Congressional mandate behind and moved into the territory of a rogue agency, much the same as the ATF and EPA have gone way off the reservation on many occaisions.

Dr. Mordrid

[KvHagedorn]

Just another example of we the people paying for a government that doesn't work for us, but for the big corporations that bribe it. Aside from accepting bribes like any lowlife banana republic official, isn't that called TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION? Wasn't there a little tiff awhile back called THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR when this happened before? Ah, but we were not some "nation" of divided interest groups at that time.. such wonderful diversity sounds more like divide and conquer to me.. no wonder the politicians harp on it so much as if it were some unassailable absolute good.

[Gurm]

Well exactly! THEY consider THEMSELVES to be a regulatory agency, but I don't think any of that was in their mandate.

[Umfriend]

<SNIP>And yet every time we turn around the FCC is fining this or that person, or enacting a new regulation.
<SNIP>As a blatant example - the FCC fined ABC an absurd amount of money for Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction". But they don't have any fining authority! ABC could, at least to the best of my knowledge, just ... ignore the fine! Thoughts?

I could not comment on the JJWM case, but in general, yes, the FCC has the authority to fine. I can prove it.

http://www.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf

Edit: Added link to the Communications Act of 1934 as Amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996

[cjolley]

The nice thing was the finality of the ruling.
It's been a few days since I read it, but I can paraphrase:

FCC: We can require this flag and it's use.
Court: Are you high on crack?

[Umfriend]

LOL. Is there a link to a report on the ruling?

[Gurm]

I could not comment on the JJWM case, but in general, yes, the FCC has the authority to fine. I can prove it.

http://www.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf

Edit: Added link to the Communications Act of 1934 as Amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996

Actually, you will note that this act VERY SPECIFICALLY limits the FCC's ability to REGULATE... ANYTHING. Note this text:

SEC. 2. [47 U.S.C. 152] APPLICATION OF ACT.
...snip...
(b) Except as provided in sections 223 through 227, inclusive, and section 332, and subject to the provisions of section 301 and title VI, nothing in this Act shall be construed to apply or to give the Commission jurisdiction with respect to (1) charges, classifications, practices, services, facilities, or regulations for or in connection with...
(it lists intrastate telecommunication, INTERstate telecommunication, and international telecommunication - which pretty much covers everything!)
...snip...
SEC. 223. [47 U.S.C. 223] OBSCENE OR HARASSING TELEPHONE CALLS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OR IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMUNICATIONS.
...snip...
SEC. 224. [47 U.S.C. 224] REGULATION OF POLE ATTACHMENTS.
...snip...
SEC. 225. [47 U.S.C. 225] TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES FOR HEARING-IMPAIRED AND SPEECH-IMPAIRED INDIVIDUALS.
...snip...
SEC. 226. [47 U.S.C. 226] TELEPHONE OPERATOR SERVICES.
...snip...
SEC. 227. [47 U.S.C. 227] RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF TELEPHONE EQUIPMENT.
...snip...
SEC. 332. [47 U.S.C. 332] MOBILE SERVICES.
...snip...

The only relevant part of those sections is 223... and they can fine NO MORE THAN $50,000! Now bear in mind this fine is for TELEPHONE OBSCENITY ONLY!

Section 332 does, in fact, appear to give the FCC limited regulatory power over the wireless spectrum, but I stress LIMITED.

I find nothing in this act that authorizes the FCC to take the heavy-handed steps they have taken in the recent past.

[Umfriend]

I read all that, and just a tad more. If you read Section 223 you'll see the the title is misleading.(unless you want to argue that a "telecommunications device" is defined as being limited to telephones only. I can't find the term defined.) I never said the FCC was authorised to fine, in this case, ABC. My point was they were authorised to fine, which you initialy denied. Moreover, indeed, they do have regulatory powers, which you denied as well.

Don't get me wrong. It is my position fining ABC was ridiculous. I am also against having home equipment fitted with protection-bit identifiers like proposed. And I am very much opposed to semi-government agencies acting outside of their mandate.

[Gurm]

I read all that, and just a tad more. If you read Section 223 you'll see the the title is misleading.(unless you want to argue that a "telecommunications device" is defined as being limited to telephones only. I can't find the term defined.) I never said the FCC was authorised to fine, in this case, ABC. My point was they were authorised to fine, which you initialy denied. Moreover, indeed, they do have regulatory powers, which you denied as well.

Don't get me wrong. It is my position fining ABC was ridiculous. I am also against having home equipment fitted with protection-bit identifiers like proposed. And I am very much opposed to semi-government agencies acting outside of their mandate.

Oh, I read section 223. It talks about "obscene telecommunications". That could, in a pinch, be REALLY STRETCHED to mean television broadcasts, radio, etc. - which is what the FCC has been interpreting it to mean. They've been laying ABSURD fines on TV and Radio stations for 50 years. And frankly, right up in the top section it says that they have NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER that isn't EXPLICITLY granted in sections 223-227. That's pretty specific. NO AUTHORITY.

I am aware that my initial position was that they had no authority to fine, period. So I'll relent and say they have authority to fine me for making obscene phone calls. Period.

And that they have regulatory power over the wireless spectrum and the telephone service, in VERY SPECIFIC AREAS, as well.

So my initial point is perhaps a bit diluted, but not really - I still posit (and you agree, clearly) that they have been overstepping their bounds almost since their inception.

[Umfriend]

Well, I know to little about the FCC and what they have and have not done, but in the actual cases submitted here, yes. I would not be surprised if you last statement was correct entirely either.

Wrt Section 223, it talks about obscene communications (not telecommunications) by means of a telecommunications device. I would expect TV, radio etc to fall within that category unless defined differently for the purpose of the Act (or section or whatever). Moreover, If you read Section 223 carefully you'll see that the $50k limit does not apply to telecommunications, but only to communication by phone. Don't get me wrong, I don't question your judgement on the JJ case. Just your understanding of the mandate of the FCC and Section 223 specifically.